3.9 Article

Comparison of Corresponding Scores From the Cleft Hearing Appearance and Speech Questionnaire (CHASQ) and CLEFT-Q in Swedish Patients With Cleft Lip and/or Palate

Journal

CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
Volume 58, Issue 6, Pages 736-745

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1055665620964124

Keywords

patient-reported outcomes; cleft lip and; or cleft palate; CHASQ; CLEFT-Q

Funding

  1. Foundation for Research in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Skane University Hospital in Malmo

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The primary aim of the study was to compare the scores of two existing cleft-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) - CHASQ and CLEFT-Q, and to investigate patient opinions on these measures. The results showed a significant correlation between CHASQ and CLEFT-Q scores in appearance but not in speech. The majority of participants preferred CLEFT-Q, found CHASQ easier to complete, and believed that CLEFT-Q would better inform healthcare professionals.
Objective: The primary aim of this study was to compare corresponding scores between 2 existing cleft-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)-Cleft Hearing Appearance and Speech Questionnaire (CHASQ) and CLEFT-Q. The second aim of the study was to investigate patient opinion on the 2 PROMs. Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire study. Setting: Participants were recruited from a University Hospital. They answered CHASQ and CLEFT-Q either in the hospital or at home. Participants: Thirty-three participants with cleft lip and/or palate, aged 10 to 19 years. Main Outcome Measure: CHASQ and CLEFT-Q. Results: The CHASQ scores and the corresponding CLEFT-Q scores on appearance correlated significantly. Corresponding scores regarding speech did not correlate significantly. A majority, 15 (58%) participants, answered that they liked CLEFT-Q more than CHASQ, 18 participants (69%) thought CHASQ was easier to complete, and 19 (76%) thought CLEFT-Q would better inform health care professionals. Conclusion: Both instruments showed strengths and limitations. Clinicians will have to consider each instrument's respective qualities when choosing to implement either PROM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available